Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> (19/05/2012):
> One question which has come up quite a bit recently is whether we should
> remove armhf and s390x from one or both of {broken,fucked}arches. Doing
> so doesn't necessarily imply making them release architectures,
> particularly while we're not treating arch-specific bugs on them as RC.
Just for the records: in the current state of affairs, the autohinter is
keen on “forgetting” to migrate binNMUs for those archs, which can
generate more installability than if it was a bit cleverer.
> arch | count | equiv-arch | equiv-count | difference
> =====================================================
> armhf | 380 | armel | 484 | -104
> s390x | 755 | s390 | 256 | 499
>
> and for testing:
>
> arch | count | equiv-arch | equiv-count | difference
> =====================================================
> armhf | 12 | armel | 0 | 12
> s390x | 28 | s390 | 1 | 27
And as mentioned on IRC, I'll try and see what can be done to reduce
those diffs.
> AIUI, the larger s390x difference currently is due to needing a new
> qt4-x11 build, which is waiting for the qt4 multiarch updates to finish
> (which are in turn waiting for mysql?).
>
> Based on the above, I don't think we should wait any longer to at least
> remove armhf from brokenarches; we could also remove s390x if we assume
> that the issues there will sort themselves out quickly enough that they
> won't start becoming blockers.
>
> Thoughts?
Baring issues I can't anticipate because I know very little about this
stuff as of yet: the sooner the better.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature